Loading...
Royal Lane Ext/FP-CS 880916September 16, 1988 P.O Box 478 Coppell. Texas 75019 214 - 462 - 0022 Mr. Mark Connell Connell Development P.O. Box 541057 Dallas, Texas 75354-1057 RE: Royal Lane Extension Construction/One-Half Street Variance/Subdivision Development Dear Mr. Connell: It appears that we are on the cutting edge by developing and completing subject development to provide a roadway that will be a key connecting link in the street network for the City of Coppell in the "Municipal Fashion". As you know, in seeking out practice and related documents for estab- lished process and policy in constructing this roadway in Coppell, the files were not replete with history or examples. Therefore, we will need to continue to work together to provide an acceptable package to the City Council so that this vital street con- nection in this Light Industrial area can be completed. We are placing your application on the September 27, 1988, City Council agenda. Earlier this week, I have, by telephone, let Bill Anderson know the elements we currently deem appropriate for the improvement. I have consulted the appropriate City Staff to develop what is presented here. We are committed to get your application to build this roadway to the City Council, and successfully approved. (However, I can not act on your behalf, but we can work together to resolve issues and to develop alternatives to outstanding issues.) For expediency, I am issuing this letter to you as well as copying the various other City personnel, including Ginn, Inc., so that we can continue to fully complete you application. Otherwise, more time would be consumed developing the package requirements before we can then respond to you. The basis of the application package, of course, is the Construction Drawings, and your engineer's "est/mate to construct" based upon his design and construction drawings as approved by the City. Your engi- neer, Bill Anderson, had a meeting today to finalize the construction drawings and engineers estimate. In the meantime, I am still using your estimate previously submitted. Ginn, Inc, the City's development review engineers, must have a complete package, and we must have a complete review and comment from Ginn, Inc. Please note, if you were building the full roadway, the process would be merely an engineering review and approval; but since building only one-half of the roadway requires a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance (see attached paragraph 5) from the City Council, this application must go through that approval process. Subject to further discussion, we probably need some relational docu- ments for the construction of a roadway in a dedicated public right-of-way. Perhaps the three way contract used by the City of Dallas Public Works Department for private development would provide us a model? We are open to any suggestions. I do not have a handy copy of the Dallas three way contract, but will obtain one. Another relational document necessary will be the Water and Sewer Pro-Rata Ordinance and possible Agreement for the specific project. We are working with the City Attorney to create that ordinance and agreement for your review and approval. (The construction drawings and engineers estimate must be finalized before we can finalize financial understandings further than at this point). It is not clear why you have an estimate for natural gas utility lines in your estimates for this public improvement project. Two other issues that need to be addressed are evidenced in Ginn, Inc.'s comments dated August 3, 1988, and August 31, 1988. (COPIES ATTACHED). Bill Anderson was given these memos for his use and information previ- ously. Likewise, you picked up a copy prior to the last Council meet- ing. We must, at least, address any and all issues presented therein. Regarding the issue about the alignment not "fitting" vis a vis the established Sandy Lake Road/RTE 121 Interchange, enclosed is a copy of the schematic where Ginn, Inc. presented the geometrics to me. Regarding the issue about the alignment not being compatible with the City's currently approved transportation plan, I have been in numerous discussions with the West Side Light Industrial Property Owners Asso- ciation, and their engineers, urging them to forward their proposals for a change in the Transportation Plan formally, so the City can act upon it. My latest meeting was with Mr. Bill Thompson and Nathan Maier Engineers. In any case, we must develop a position (not necessarily going through changing the transportation plan) that will be acceptable to all concerned. I will not cite possible alternatives to be con- sidered that come to mind here, but have and will discuss them with your engineers and/or yourself. Now to the financial area. Based on the numbers furnished to-date by assuming a 50/50 participation by you and the contiguous owner, (since the City has no funding and will have none for this in the immediate future), it appears that: 1) For water and sewer, a pro-rata ordinance and agreement will complete the item. 2) For streets and drainage, there is a $28,000~ deficit given the numbers furnished and it is not clear whether there are added costs for the transition construction (i.e. from two (2) lane to four (4) lane divided) and if so, who will assume those costs. 3) As mentioned above, it is not clear why natural gas utility lines are in this public improvement. 4) Both street lights and landscaping are omitted in the proposed numbers for the two (2) lane roadway. This presents a $17,000+_ and $5,200+__ deficit. Therefore, with my cursory review there appears to be a $55,000+_deficit (including engineering, etc.) that will need to be addressed, as to whether you would escrow that amount or ? . The topic of escrow may not ever reach the City Council level, but we (The City Staff) must have this issue addressed and accommodated. Only in working together can we do that. Again, this letter is sent to communicate the needs and the issues. We need to work together to tie up any and all loose ends. I am working on the pro-rata ordinance and agreement development. Your engineer is working on the construction drawing finalization, and this will be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of Tuesday, September 27, 1988. As in my memo dated September 9, 1988, (COPY ATTACHED) we tried moving this packet forward before and admittedly when all items were compiled and evaluated; Submission to the City Council was premature. I am sorry for that, but we will get it completed together. Thank you. Sincerely, /' ! City Engineer RRD/lsg xc: Steve Goram, Director of Public Works Ginn, Inc., Consulting Engineers Taryon Bowman, P&Z Coordinator Shohre Daneshmand, Civil Engineer Richard Terry, Acting Fire Chief Dale Jackson, Building Official Bill Anderson, Roberts Dowdy Engineers ROYAL.LN.~STREET MEMOI A~e~ia] streets shall intersect at 90 degree angles unless othe=wtse app=oved by the City. Half-st=eets shall be p=ohibtted, except when essential to the ~easonable development of the subdivision and where the City Council finds it will be P~actical to ~equi~e the dedication of the othe~ one-half when the ad)ointng p~ope~ty ts subdivided. Strips of p~ivately owned p~ope~ty ~ese~ved fo~ the obvious purpose of controlling access to shall be p~ohtbited except where control definitely placed in the City under conditions approved by the Planning and Zontng Commtsslon. Street alignments with cente~ltne offsets of less than 12S feet shall be p~ohfbited. A cul-de-sac shall not be longer than 600 feet and at the closed end shall have a turn a~ound p~ovtded, having a minimum outslde ~oadway dtamete~ of 80 feet and a minimum street p~ope~ty line dlamete~ of 100 feet. Pa~king islands shall be ~equl~ed if onst~eet pa~ktng is desired in the cul-de-sac. ]f pa~ktng is]ands a~e included, the dtamete~ of the cul-de-sac shall be designed to facilitate circular movement of t~affic a~ound the cul-de-sac also. At the intersection of a new subdivision street wfth an existing boulevard a~te~tal, the Develope~ of the subdivision shall construct a median opentng ~n the boulevard, unless otherwise directed by the City. Appendix A MEMORANDUM DATE: August 3, 1988 TO: Russell Doyle, P. E. FROM: Kevin Peiffer" SUBJECT: Royal Lane Extension Connell Development Company Per your request of Friday, July 29, 1988, we have reviewed the cost estimate prepared by Connell Development Company and their engineers for the above subject project. (Copy enclosed) In brief, we agree with the estimated costs shown for the paving and drainage improvements. The water and sewer estimated costs appear low by approximately $50,000.00, but this should not affect the City regarding the 2 or 4 lane issue. We did not have plans available to us for review of the gas and landscaping proposed. The street lighting figure appears to be a good figure. The lab/testing/ field and design engineering costs seem quite low for a project of this size. The engineering costs however are handled through the developer/engineer contract for services and thus should not be a concern of the City when looking at the 2 vs. 4 lane issue. Some items to consider if only the 2 lane roadway is required at this time would be as follows: City should require that the developer commit in writing, probably in the form of a two-party agreement, that they'll agree to escrow to the City the necessary funds at the time any part or all of the property on the West side of Royal Lane is final platted. The said agreement should address but not limited to the shared cost to complete the paving, storm drainage, street lighting, landscaping, gas, engineering and testing and their pro-rata portion of the construction permit fee to cover City inspection. Upon Connell Development Company's request, the City could agree to prepare and adopt a pro-rata ordinance for water and sewer utilities installed by Connell at this time. Said ordinance should include a provision that states "any pro- rata reimbursements paid to the City would only be refunded by the City to Connell Development Company upon Connell Development Company's satisfying the escrow requirement above in full. If said escrow account was not funded within a one-year period from the date of council's approval of the final plat of any or all the property west of Royal Lane, said pro-rata share would become due to the City of Coppell as a penalty payment due. This penalty payment would still not relieve the Connell property from its obligation to share one-half the cost of the total final cost of the improvements. GINN, INC. CONSULTING 'ENGINEERS Date: To: From: Subject: August 31, 1988 'Russell Doyle, P.E. Kevin Peiffer~ Royal Lane Extension North Coppell, TX As follow-up to our previous construction plan reviews and prior meetings and discussions regarding the above subject project, we wish to reiterate our observations for the record. The alignment of the proposed Royal Lane extension northward has been stated by the applicant, Connell Development Co., as being consistent with their City approved final plat. We have not verified whether or not this final plat was approved, signed and filed at Dallas County, but have requested the City to locate said plat for verification of this to the DRC (see attached). The 'proposed alignment is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Master Thoroughfare plan. The proposed alignment conflicts with the currently proposed SH121/Sandy Lake Road interchange exit and entrance ramps. In light of the above observations, we suggest the City pursue a traffic study of the Northwest quadrant of the City to evaluate what alignment would best meet the future ultimate needs of both the City of Coppell and the regional needs in this part of Dallas County. We shall await your direction and instructions on this matter prior to proceeding any further with the plan review process. Please call ~f you should have any further questions. cc: Alan D. Ratliff H. Wayne Ginn John C. Karlsruher File 88305 17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 ·Dallas, Te.,xas 75248 · Phone 214/248-4900 app:ovol, on the p:o)ect ot all ttmes du:tng const=uctton. If const=uctton has not commenced within one yea: cftc= opp:ovol of the plans, =esubmittol of plans may be :equt=ed by the City Engtnee: fo= meeting cu==ent stando:ds and enginee=tng :equi:ements. SECTION X - FILING OF PLA] A. Alta: opp=ovol of the Ftnol Plot by the City Council and co:=ection of the plot os =equt:ed by the City Counctl, the Planning and the Engtnee:tng Oepo:tments, the Develope: shall submit ftling fees and the :equt:ed numbe= of coptes fo= filing with the County Cle=k. These copies shall bea= all stgnatu:es of the City Officials. Afte= signature by the City Officials, the Develope: completes the filing p=ocess and =etu=ns the =equt=ed numbe: of filed cop~es to the City. Said copies shall show the volume and page of the Hap and Plot Reco:ds into which the plot was filed by the County Cle=k. If th____~e ftnol plot has not been submitted fo= slgnatu:es b Cji ctals w stx months aft_te_~ oppcovol by the City Counctl, the plot shall be deemed null I I I I I I and void, =esubmtttal shall be :equt:ed, and cu::ent subdivision :equlotions sh~il_~aJa.l~- SECTION XI - SUSMI]'TALS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. P=io= to outho=tzing const:uction, the City Enginee: shall be satisfied that the following conditions have been met: 1. lhe Final Plot shall be completed to the :equi=ements of the City Council at the time of opp:ovol. Subdivision 15 m × × ~ '~ X x x x x x ,'~ x September 8, 1988 TO: EROM: RE: Alan Ratliff, City Manager Russell R. Doyle, P.E., City Engineer September 13, 1988, City Council Agenda Item Requesting a Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance, App. A, Page 2, Item 5 Per the attached September 8, 1988, request letter by Mr. Mark Connell of Connel] Development Company, the City Council may "accept" the prohibition of half-streets "when essential to the reasonable develop- ment of the subdivision and where the City Council finds it will be practical to require dedication of the other one-half when adjoining property is subdivided". (A copy of Page 2 of subject Appendix A is attached). If the full street was going to be built, no Council action would be necessary, but only approval of the construction drawings would be required. Per the minutes of the January 26, 1986, City Council meeting (copy attached), the final plat was approved for the "Royal Lane Extension". Per the attached June 16, 1988, transmitted letter, the first set of Construction Plans were submitted. The final revised set was resubmit- ted today, and Ginn, Inc. will provide their review and/or approval comments in writing at the City Council meeting. Attached are copies of the following: Mr. Connell's original submittal, and at my request, Ginn, Inc.'s review comments dated August 3, 1988. me Mr. Connell's August 5, 1988, letter submitting a revised estimate in which there was no further comment by Ginn, Inc. Be Ginn, Inc.'s comments dated August 31, 1988. Further comments, by paragraph number, are: Paragraph #2 - Will be determined at the City Council meeting. Paragraph #3 - (Copy of Master Thoroughfare Plan attached), when this was brought to the City's attention during Ginn, Inc.'s review, the applicant and his engi- neer were appraised of Ginn, Inc.'s opinion. No further formal documents have been presented to verify Ginn, Inc.'s conclusion on this matter. The applicant can address whether the possible inconsistency is objection- able to him since when platting his property to the north Just south of Thweatt Road (Sandy Lake Road), he will be required to comply to the Thoroughfare Plan at that time. (Mote, this plat was approved on January 28, 1986, and the Thoroughfare Plan was approved tn February, 1987, as a part of the City of Coppell's Comprehensive Master Plan, by J.T. Dunkin and Associates, Inc. of Dallas, Texas. Ginn, Inc. cam address the inconsistency at the Council meeting. Paragraph #4 - Appl.~cant was informed. has not been furnished by Ginn, Inc.). (Documentation Paragraph #5 - Ginn, Inc. was requested on September 1, 1988, to provide mn estimated work order for this pro- posal. I do not recall any response as yet, other than Wayne Gtnn indicating last week that he will be answering some pending requests this week. (Requesting for Council meeting). Paragraph #6 - Ginm, Inc. was provided clear direction at a pre-agenda meeting for the August Planning and Zoning Commission meeting with the applicant, and again in response to their August 31, 1988 "follow-up" memo. Ginn, Inc. was asked for their review to be completed, since the construction drainways were already 98% com- pleted before we got these opinions about the Thorough- fare/Master Plan inconsistency, the potentially expired plat, and the fact that the platted alignment for the roadway "won't work", related to the State Highway 121/Sandy Lake Road ~nterchange exit and entrance ramps. Via the applicants engineer, I had the understanding that this request for a one-half street variance would not be on the September 13, 1988, agenda. I found out differently on Tuesday, September 6, 1988, during a meeting with the applicant on the Hager Plat when his engineer was not in attendance. While everything Jn this case is not fully resolved, and some information will be furnished, as desired by the City Council, on Tuesday; I have worked with the applicant to satisfy his desire to have it considered on the same night as the Hager Plat. I hope to have presented the facts and sequence, etc. so that if Council so deems, they may act on this requast w~th th~ best information p~i- ble. RRD/lsg cc: Wayne Ginn, P.E., Ginn, Inc. Shohre Daneshmand, Civil Engineer Mark Connell, Connell Development MEMO.~STREET MEMO] GINN. INC. CONSI-LTING ENGINEERS DATE' September 9, 1988 TO: Russell Doyle /~~ 4~~.~ FROH: H. Wayne Ginn SUBJECT' Royal Lane Extension North In response to your memo of 09/06/88, we offer the following comments. Regarding paragraph # 2, we acknowledge receipt of your request of 09/02/88 to Taryon, requesting she pursue acquiring a copy of the filed plat for both our records. Thank you. Regarding the exhibits you requested by memo dated 09/06/88, we returned them to you after John Karlsruher completed his review on 08/10/88 of the ramps and interchange per vour earlier request. The exhibits should be in your office verifying the facts presented in our 08/31/88 memo. In reference to the work authorization for studying the conflicting Royal Lane alignment versus the City Colmcil approved master thoro;~hfare plan, a work authorization request was submitted 07/15/88, of which a copy is attached, lqe were informed that the work had not been approved due to budget restraints. In reference to the construction plan review for Royal Lane, which is 98% complete, we confirm you had requested two to three times to complete the review process, however as you recall, we also conveyed that ~. Bill Anderson, Connell's Engineer, has never re-submitted the revised plans so we could accommodate your requests. Mr. Anderson's failure to re-sub- mit could possibly be due to the alignment issue not being resolved with ~:c~ Che-Ci~t~y yet, but we, as of the date of this letter, still have not re- ceived any revised construction plans. The purpose of paragraph # 6 was to provide You the opportunity during the interim time period between , .~our 08/31/88 me~o and Mr..Anderson's submittal to consider the ali..m~ment ·-~'sk~.before any more funds were spent on the plan reviews, since this roadway alignment may never be constructed, unless supported by the coun- cil through a revision to the City's adopted master thoroughfare plan. v' We hope this accommodates your needs. cc: Alan D. Ratliff Kevin Peiffer File 88305 FBVG/mj encls.